(1.) IN both the writ petitions, the petitioner is same and has challenged the order dated December 16, 2004 (annexure 3) passed by opposite party No. 2, Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as, "the revisional authority") in Revision Case Nos. PU -216 and 217 of 2000 -01 by which the revisional authority refused the petitioner's prayer to issue direction for restoration of the registration certificates of the petitioner which were earlier granted under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the OST Act") and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the CST Act") and subsequently cancelled by opposite party No. 3, Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as, "the STO") vide annexure 2, on the ground that the STO has illegally cancelled the registration certificates with retrospective effect without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the issues involved in both the petitions are same, with consent of the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ petitions are that the petitioner is a small -scale industrial unit having permanent registration No. 151502135 issued by the District Industries Centre, Bhubaneswar. It carries on business of processing and benefaction of mineral ores. The petitioner was registered under section 9A of the OST Act bearing registration certificate No. BH -II -1229 with effect from December 3, 1992 and under the CST Act bearing Registration Certificate No. BHC -11 -849. The petitioner had been filing returns regularly and its registration certificate had been renewed every year till 1998 -99. For the year 1999 -2000, the petitioner had applied for renewal of registration certificate in prescribed form IIA of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the OST Rules") on April 12, 1999 with a petition for condonation of delay caused in making application for such renewal. The STO cancelled the said registration certificate of the petitioner on December 30, 1999 under section 9(6)(b) of the OST Act with effect from April 1, 1999 on the ground of filing "nil" return for last three consecutive years. The STO also cancelled the registration certificate issued under the CST Act on February 23, 2000 under section 7(4)(b) of the CST Act with effect from April 1, 1999 on similar ground. Being aggrieved by the orders of cancellation of registration certificates, the petitioner approached the revisional authority for a direction to the STO for restoration of its registration certificates in Revision Case No. PU -216 of 2000 -01, but the same was rejected by the revisional authority as being devoid of any merit. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) MR . Dalei, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the petitioner itself has admitted that during the three consecutive financial years 1996 -97, 1997 -98 and 1998 -99 there was no transaction of purchase or sale and the petitioner filed "nil" returns for those three years both under the OST Act and the CST Act. This being the factual position, no illegality has been committed by the STO in cancelling the registration certificates issued to the petitioner under the OST Act and the CST Act so also the revisional authority is fully justified in upholding the action of the STO. He further submitted that the authority granting registration certificate has the power to cancel the same as per section 22 of the General Clauses Act. Rules 6, 6A and 7 of the OST Rules, which deal with grant of registration certificate, authorise the STO to act as prescribed authority, and the cancellation of registration certificates vide annexure 6 was done by him by way of abundant caution. The revisional authority has also passed a reasoned order upholding the action of the STO. The contention of the petitioner that no power has been delegated to the STO to cancel its registration certificate at the relevant time was neither raised before the revisional authority nor has any such pleading been taken in any of the writ petitions. Therefore, at this stage, such plea should not be entertained by this court.